Traditional support? You'll find none, of course.
this sacred Office of Teacher in matters of faith and morals must be the proximate and universal criterion of truth for all theologians, since to it has been entrusted by Christ Our Lord the whole deposit of faith - Sacred Scripture and divine Tradition - to be preserved, guarded and interpreted, still the duty that is incumbent on the faithful to flee also those errors which more or less approach heresy, and accordingly "to keep also the constitutions and decrees by which such evil opinions are proscribed and forbidden by the Holy See," is sometimes as little known as if it did not exist ... But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians. (Pius XII, Humani Generis 18,20)
Where's the "unless he thinks the Pope is wrong" clause? In fact, Pius XII was dealing with precisely this case (see §18). The theologians he condemned were arguing that the Pontiffs had taught against traditional doctrine and should be practically ignored:
What is expounded in the Encyclical Letters of the Roman Pontiffs concerning the nature and constitution of the Church, is deliberately and habitually neglected by some with the idea of giving force to a certain vague notion which they profess to have found in the ancient Fathers, especially the Greeks.
It is simply not part of the duties of Catholics for them to dissent from the teaching of the Sovereign Pontiff, as if the average layman was qualified to judge the doctrinal value of the Magisterium:
For, together with the sources of positive theology God has given to His Church a living Teaching Authority to elucidate and explain what is contained in the deposit of faith only obscurely and implicitly. This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church. (HG 21)
To say otherwise is the thesis of modernists like Frs. Curran and McCormick, not traditional doctrine.
You do love to cite Pius X and Pius XII--who are turning over in their graves in horror at what Paul VI and JPII have done. Here is a Traditional source that is impeccable--Vatican I:
"For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the Successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine."
Got it? New doctrine gets no divine protection. Novelty can't bind anybody--especially when it contradicts true magisterial teaching. And it continues:
"But that by His help they might GUARD the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of faith, and might faithfully set it forth."
Read it and weep. It is the job of the papacy, in other words, to PROTECT Tradition and to FAITHFULLY set it forth, not to invent a new Gospel or a new Advent or a Second Pentecost.
That's Vatican I talking--DOGMATICALLY--not some second rate pastoral council gussied up to give the pretext to a fraudulent revolution.
Now I ask you--has Rome been PROTECTING Tradition--or has it sought to destroy it? Has it FAITHFULLY set that tradition forth, or does it suppress and subvert it every chance it gets?